The court can accept a genuine compromise between the parties under Section 147 of the NI Act and quash the conviction and sentence to secure the ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. When the matter is called out for hearing, respondent No. 2-original complainant Shri Nirmalbhai Rameshbhai Shah, Partner of Mangalam Finance is present along with his advocate Mr. Y.V. Brahmbhatt. Both the parties to the proceedings filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, submit that the matter is settled between the parties and in support thereof, the respondent No. 2-original complainant files compromise pursis which is ordered to be taken on record.

2. The respondent No. 2-original complainant is present in the Court. He has been identified by learned advocate Mr. Y.V. Brahmbhatt. The complainant in unequivocal terms stated before the Court that he has received the amount of cheque and now, no grievance is remaining. He does not want to proceed further in regards to the dispute of offence punishable u/s 138 of the N.I. Act. He further submits that if the petitioner accused is acquitted upon the compromise between the parties, he has whatsoever no objection. Section 147 of the NI Act permits the party to enter into compromise at every stage of the litigation. This has been recognized by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. AIR 2010 SC 1907. The complainant is also compounding the offence.

3. After verifying voluntary character of the compromise, it is hereby declared that the compromise arrived at between the parties to this litigation out of the Court is accepted as genuine and the order of conviction and sentence dated 18.10.2008 passed by the learned JMFC, Anand in Criminal Case No. 3019 of 2007 and confirmed vide order dated 26.3.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Anand in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2008 both are required to be quashed and set aside as this Court intends to secure ends of justice as provided under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

4. In light of the decision rendered by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. AIR 2010 SC 1907, the applicant is required to pay Rs. 50,000/- by way of compounding charge with the District Legal Services Authority, Anand in accordance with the guidelines laid-down in the said decision. In Para 17 of the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed that the Court can reduce the costs with regard to the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

5. For the foregoing reasons, present petition succeeds and is accordingly, allowed. The order of conviction and awarding sentence dated 18.10.2008 passed by the learned JMFC, Anand in Criminal Case No. 3019 of 2007 and confirmed vide order dated 26.3.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Anand in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 2008 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner accused is set free if not required in any other purpose. Since the amount of Rs .6,50,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner accused before the concerned learned trial Court, it is hereby directed that out of Rs. 6,50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- shall be deducted by way of compounding charge and shall be deposited before the District Legal Services Authority, Anand. The remaining amount with accrued interest thereon shall be paid back to the present petitioner-original accused Mr. Rashmikant K. Shah upon due verification. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service permitted.